From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Vetter Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Add missing locking to primary plane handlers Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:52:25 +0200 Message-ID: <20140710065225.GC17271@phenom.ffwll.local> References: <1404948131-12448-1-git-send-email-matthew.d.roper@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com (mail-we0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8756E1A6 for ; Wed, 9 Jul 2014 23:52:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id x48so8485697wes.11 for ; Wed, 09 Jul 2014 23:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1404948131-12448-1-git-send-email-matthew.d.roper@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: Matt Roper Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 04:22:10PM -0700, Matt Roper wrote: > intel_primary_plane_{setplane,disable} were lacking struct_mutex locking > around their GEM operations. > > Signed-off-by: Matt Roper Both merged with a reported-by: Damien added to this one here. Btw have you checked that your primary plane tests hit this with the new WARN_ONs? I'm missing the Testcase: tag ;-) -Daniel > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 17 +++++++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > index 5a50ff9..6b25068 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c > @@ -11389,9 +11389,11 @@ intel_primary_plane_disable(struct drm_plane *plane) > intel_disable_primary_hw_plane(dev_priv, intel_plane->plane, > intel_plane->pipe); > disable_unpin: > + mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > i915_gem_track_fb(intel_fb_obj(plane->fb), NULL, > INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_PRIMARY(intel_crtc->pipe)); > intel_unpin_fb_obj(intel_fb_obj(plane->fb)); > + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > plane->fb = NULL; > > return 0; > @@ -11448,6 +11450,8 @@ intel_primary_plane_setplane(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_crtc *crtc, > * turn on the display with all planes setup as desired. > */ > if (!crtc->enabled) { > + mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > + > /* > * If we already called setplane while the crtc was disabled, > * we may have an fb pinned; unpin it. > @@ -11459,7 +11463,10 @@ intel_primary_plane_setplane(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_crtc *crtc, > INTEL_FRONTBUFFER_PRIMARY(intel_crtc->pipe)); > > /* Pin and return without programming hardware */ > - return intel_pin_and_fence_fb_obj(dev, obj, NULL); > + ret = intel_pin_and_fence_fb_obj(dev, obj, NULL); > + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > + > + return ret; > } > > intel_crtc_wait_for_pending_flips(crtc); > @@ -11471,14 +11478,18 @@ intel_primary_plane_setplane(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_crtc *crtc, > * because plane->fb still gets set and pinned. > */ > if (!visible) { > + mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex); > + > /* > * Try to pin the new fb first so that we can bail out if we > * fail. > */ > if (plane->fb != fb) { > ret = intel_pin_and_fence_fb_obj(dev, obj, NULL); > - if (ret) > + if (ret) { > + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > return ret; > + } > } > > i915_gem_track_fb(old_obj, obj, > @@ -11494,6 +11505,8 @@ intel_primary_plane_setplane(struct drm_plane *plane, struct drm_crtc *crtc, > if (plane->fb) > intel_unpin_fb_obj(old_obj); > > + mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); > + > return 0; > } > > -- > 1.8.5.1 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch